beta
Text
1. The attached Table No. 20, 21, 22, 23, 10, 29, 24, and 20-20 of the attached Table No. 20, 21, 22, 23, 10, 29, 24, among the area of 7,36
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Of the [Attachment 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 24 [Attachment 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 24 [Attachment 3] attached hereto, the Plaintiff’s father, D, and mother E (hereinafter “each of the instant graves”) are installed on the ground of the area of 16 square meters located on the ground of the attached Table 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 24.
B. Around July 7, 1969 when D died, and around February 5, 191 when E died, the Plaintiff, a reader, installed each of the instant graves on the land of the said “three-dimensional” portion. At the time of drilling each year, each of the instant graves was able to be protected, including the beginning of the instant grave, the removal of the grave, and the removal of the grave.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), witness F testimony, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Daejeon Western Site Market by the Korea Land and Land Information Corporation by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the plaintiff's questioning
2. Determination on the main claim
A. In a case where a grave is installed on the land owned by another person who established the right to grave base without the consent of the owner, possession of the grave for twenty (20) years in peace and openly and openly, by prescription, the right to grave base, which is a customary real right similar to superficies, is to be acquired by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da14036, Jun. 14, 1996). Here, a peaceful occupancy refers to a possession by which the possessor does not use force that is not legally acceptable for the acquisition or possession of the said grave, and the term “public performance occupancy” refers to a possession that is not a non-exclusive possession, and thus, the said possession has received objection from the claimant as illegal or there was legal dispute
Even if such fact alone, the possession cannot be said to be lost in peace and performance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da6983 delivered on April 24, 1992, etc.). According to the health care unit and the above basic facts, the Plaintiff each of the instant cases.